Did you really? 'Family appeal' as London said??

It's a shopping centre, Christmas time with kids around, it's the Three Bears - Kate is wearing a pelmet skirt and has her leg over daddy and a suggestive look
Now I guess it was set up by the ad agency but she didn't have to agree - not appropriate at all I would say, very bad taste, combining little-kiddy-book characters with that.

I know we have had a joke about it but really, she must be pretty desperate, maybe the worst thing she has done - it's almost perverted in its context.

i have no problem with seeing kate's legs

i think you have an overactive imagination, if you think that pic was perverted then you really do need help!

How about tacky then?

The word I wold use is inappropriate.

It's not a kind for image that little kiddies should be seeing at christmas time

It's probably more suitable for loaded mag, or something like that.

that'll do but saying it was perverted is sooo OTT ha

no kiddies should be seeing toys and being taught to be little consumers instead

i don't believe "little kiddies" will see a "sexual" image when they see that personally, they'll see a bear and kate off the telly.

I thought the picture's of Kate were to encourage to children to be consumers..surely thats what they are all about

I agree, I don't suppose the children will see it as "sexual", but it's still inappropriate......

why is it inappropriate?

It's inappropriate because the image is an overtly sexual one.
As a mother , I know children like to copy the images they see..it's difficut enough as it is to explain to them what is appropriate contact and what isn't.
I know these images are abundant, but this particular one is actually aimed at children.

Children are becoming aware of sex and therefore interested in it, at a younger and younger age.
I'm not blaming Kate as such..It's this whole culture of encouraging little girls to dress and act like adults that is to blame. This type of advertiseing is just the tip of a far bigger iceburg.

That's exactly what I meant - I didn't say perverted, trash, I said 'almost perverted in its context' ie not the image itself but to use that angle in a picture with teddy bears obviously aimed at very young children.
Inappropriate is what I meant.
Last edited by anon2 : 06-11-2003 at 12:05

[

Sorry, but it hardly as if Kate's got her tits out is it?
She's showing a bit of leg, take a walk down ANY high street and you'll see a lot more "risqué" images than that.

I think young an old will see these images for what they are, a beautiful representation of the true spirit of Christmas with Kate being the Christ like figure (and the bears being the other people out of the bible such as noah and jonah and santa clause etc)

Naughty naughty DD

only to an adult

But shopping centres are for everyone not just adults - and given that there are three teddy bears in the picture and the theme is Christmas - Teddys and Christmas? I'd say it was aimed at kids.

I don't blame Kate for this at all (unless she initiated or insisted on the 'leg over' pose)- more the magazine picture editor/ shopping centre promotions team. As Kate is known for, and relies on for publicity, her straight/gaysex past/sexual outfits AND is (sickeningly) infamous for laughing at a dying bear about to be shot....well let's just say someone should have done their research...

Before the backlash starts - this isn't a Kate-bash. Just a comment on a shopping centre promotion that seems to be aimed at kiddies yet a bit tasteless to adults. Not that it really matters because the kids just see three bears and a reality TV contestant being Goldilocks and the Three Bears. All the same -anyone with half a brain can see it's a bit "fetishy" regardless of who is in the photo.

Kate is not known for those things other than by a very small minority of people who are jelous of her good looks and talent.

Kate is known as
1) the one true winner of BB
2) A talented radio and tv presenter
3) the Uks favourite entertainer.

i have no knowledge of her laughing at a bear about to be shot, but if the bears in the photo have forgiven Kate for this, can we all not do the same?

I agree with all that Emzi.

I also wasn't having a go at Kate, she looks good in the picture and if anything I guess the ad agency is responsible.

As for 'only to an adult', trash80, yes but come on, it's the Three Bears and it's obviously aimed at kids.
Only to an adult - maybe then we could have an attractive male star next year and Snow-White on her knees......etc

so what? the kids won't get the so-called sexual image anyway, they'll dig the bears. the dads will like kate's leg. everyone's a winner!

again you miss the point i made, if the kids don't get the sexual content which some infer then what harm is done. personally i didn't see any pervy meaning to the picture, and i am hardly innocent. maybe some people are just dirty and are projecting their mucky minds onto everyone else?

I don't like the insinuation there.
Besides, it's quite obvious Kate has her leg over the bear, no imagination needed.

quite obvious to you, so it must be right then

I never said the picture was pervy - that is the interpretation you have chosen to put on it.

You keep taking my word out of context of its sentence and to mean something else, intentionally or not I don't know.
I have already explained once that I was not referring to the picture but the context, the advertising slant, and the meaning was inappropriate imo.
Maybe you did not read that or maybe you chose to ignore it and continue to twist my meaning again.

So, here is an Oxford dictionary definition of the word as I intended:
"Pervert: turn aside from it's proper use or nature, misconstrue, misapply."
ie. not appropriate to use such with the three bears in this way.
As I said.

no i was referring to you saying she had her leg over actually, never mind. the whole arguement is going in circles

Yes, I really don't have time for this, I'm trying to do something else.
It was one line of my opinion of the picture which you took out of context and quoted that I said the picture was perverted, which I did not, that was your interpretation.
Hence I was compelled to reply in case others thought I said that.
As long as all are now clear that you said that not me then that's fine by me.